Author
Topic: 70-200 II and forget about primes? (70-200 IS I is rubbish?) (Read 14725 times)

00Q

I love zoom f/2.8s. Personally because I love the convenience. Take a shot and get out of there! So I have the canon 24-70 but only the sigma 70-200 OS. The sigma is nice, very sharp and fast.

Im aware of the IQ of primes. I tried the 50mm 1.4 and although it was fun to shoot and I love the look of the images at 1.4 ( even the images are soft at 1.4), it was a damn pain to shoot with.

On thedigitalpicture website, I compared the images of the 70-200 II with other lenses and I was amazed at the sharpness of this lens across all aperatures and zoom ranges. Its comparable to primes. I heard about this lens sharpness but only saw it myself a few days ago.

so question is, shall I sell my very new Sigma 70-200 OS for £750 and add another £750 to get the 70-200II and never have to worry about primes every again?

I also tested the 70-200 IS I, it seems the images are rubbish, softer than the non IS version. Anyone can confirm this?

As a new owner of the 70-200 2.8 IS II, it is incredibly sharp, and even in tight spaces, I find myself grabbing it more and more. I really don't notice the weight.

Are the primes better. Yes. Yes they are. But not by that much in terms of sharpness. They may have some other qualities individually they 70-200 does not offer, but they are probably not nearly as convenient

The 70-200 f2.8 II IS is an amazing lens and definitely my favourite one to shoot with. Its IQ is outstanding, you get usable pics at 2.8 already, from 5.6 onwards it's really prime sharp. I upgraded from the F4 IS version about a year ago and did never regret it. On FF I would use it even more often I think...

willrobb

Im aware of the IQ of primes. I tried the 50mm 1.4 and although it was fun to shoot and I love the look of the images at 1.4 ( even the images are soft at 1.4), it was a damn pain to shoot with.

On another post about primes versus zooms smirkypants said this:

"Zooms are practical family sedans and primes are impractical but fun convertibles."

I think this is true, zooms deliver good reliable results, especially at f2.8 it's hard to go wrong. When you have primes that go down to f1.2 - f1.4 it's harder to nail focus, but when you nail it....then you get superb results.

Not trying to go too far afield, but in terms of sharpness only, how do people feel about the 200 f2.8 prime and the 70-200mm f4 IS. Are they as sharp as, or sharper than, the 70-200 f2.8 II IS?

The 70-200 II beats them both (although only slightly - detectable in tests, probably not relevant in real-world shooting).

Can I ask you your opinion about IS performance?

I have this lens and the f/4 IS version and I think that the f/4 has much better IS. Of course may be the weight of the f/2.8 lens is the culprit but I am not completely sure that it can explain everything. OK, IS definitely works (I can see the difference when I turn it off) and in fact it is very quiet.

But still I think that while the f/4 IS behaves like a true 4-stop version the f/2.8 behaves like it is not 4-stop but1 or 1.5 stop only. Maybe it is just me but I am disappointed.

I have never tested the f2.8 IS and f4 IS side by side since I sold the f4 in order to get the f2.8 however I do not remember the IS on the f4 to be better. One reason could be that I am now taking those shots I would have previously taken at f4 at f2.8 instead.Anyway, the IS on the f2.8 has worked great so far for me and my keeper rate remains as high as with the f4 IS which I can recommend to anyone who does not really need the f2.8.

Not trying to go too far afield, but in terms of sharpness only, how do people feel about the 200 f2.8 prime and the 70-200mm f4 IS. Are they as sharp as, or sharper than, the 70-200 f2.8 II IS?

The 70-200 II beats them both (although only slightly - detectable in tests, probably not relevant in real-world shooting).

Can I ask you your opinion about IS performance?

I have this lens and the f/4 IS version and I think that the f/4 has much better IS. Of course may be the weight of the f/2.8 lens is the culprit but I am not completely sure that it can explain everything. OK, IS definitely works (I can see the difference when I turn it off) and in fact it is very quiet.

But still I think that while the f/4 IS behaves like a true 4-stop version the f/2.8 behaves like it is not 4-stop but1 or 1.5 stop only. Maybe it is just me but I am disappointed.

This shot was handheld at 95mm on a 5DII (free hand standing on a narrow bridge with no railing, not braced against anything), and was a 0.5 s exposure. Granted, there's a little motion blur at 100% viewing (but it looks decent at 1600 pixels - click the pic, then View All Sizes, then Original, check the writing on the wooden columns above the falls). That's 5.5 stops below the 1/focal length guideline - the IS seems pretty good to me...

I've been able occasionally to do some 1/5 or 1/15 level exposures - not with every shot - with the recent Sigma f/2.8 OS zoom at its 300mm setting, without any notable shake even at 100%. The new 4-stop stabilized lenses really are worth it. I'm not sure the Canon will really offer much better OS performance.

However, good shooting technique is a must (so is the ability to take multiple shots if you are going to try to get the best possible shot for printing). Some people simply haven't been able to take shots these good.

So it's worth considering that the 70-200mm (or any other zoom) offers another useful facility - the ability to zoom out and back the camera up against something solid for a support.

If you can't do that, remember to tuck your elbows into your chest and stop breathing for the duration of the shot, as a start.

None of this is very good for taking photos of speakers or performers at events in dim lighting - anything with movement you want to freeze, basically; you'll need more light or to bump up you ISO sensitivity.